Part 3 of our coverage of the C Ye–Britney dispute. Read Part 1 and Part 2.

What began as a dispute over money C Ye says Britney owes her has expanded into a much broader controversy. In his latest video, Charlie Carrel presents a statement attributed to Hustler Casino Live announcing a break from Britney’s appearances while it reviews allegations. He also discusses accounts from Aaron Zang, high-stakes player Peter, and others concerning private games and business dealings.

The video is titled “Poker Influencer Britney – BANNED FROM HUSTLER CASINO LIVE.” The statement Carrel reads is more measured. That distinction matters.

HCL Says It Is Reviewing the Allegations

Hustler Casino Live issued the following official statement on X, which Carrel reads at roughly 2:09 in his video:

We are aware of the various allegations concerning Britney and take them seriously. We are gathering information from the people involved and reviewing the relevant facts. We will not draw conclusions before that review is complete.

Britney will take a break from appearing on Hustler Casino Live while we conduct the review. We will provide an update when we have more information to share.

Carrel characterizes this as a ban. The wording he quotes establishes a break during a review, not a permanent ban or a finding that the allegations are true.

Nevertheless, it is a significant development in a dispute that has moved well beyond the original payment disagreement.

Aaron Zang Adds His Account

Carrel presents statements attributed to poker player Aaron Zang, whom he says he has also spoken with privately. Zang describes participating in private games Britney organized in Shanghai and a later disagreement over whether he was approaching people she considered her clients.

The broader allegation in the statements is that Britney held financial interests in professional players participating against wealthy recreational players. Zang also accuses her of discrediting people who challenge her and alleges unfair practices in the games she organized.

These are serious allegations from a named player. They remain allegations, not independently established findings by Six Toed Pete. Having a financial interest in another player does not, by itself, prove cheating; disclosure, game rules, and the conduct of those involved matter.

Peter’s Social Media and a Disputed Hand

Carrel also shows a video he identifies as Peter’s account of losing access to social media set up on his behalf. Carrel says Peter’s niece confirmed the video’s authenticity. He discusses an account shown promoting an affiliate code associated with Britney’s sister, Sherry.

The transcript supplied for this article does not fully capture Peter’s spoken account. His comments are best viewed in the original video rather than treated here as a complete, independently verified translation.

Carrel then examines a poker hand that Peter and others have pointed to as possible collusion. After reviewing the action, however, Carrel does not endorse that conclusion based on the hand alone. He explains that the betting sequence could make strategic sense without an agreement between the players.

“I don’t think this hand by itself is enough evidence,” he says.

That qualification deserves as much attention as the accusation. An unfavorable result and suspicious-looking action are not, on their own, proof of collusion.

Further Claims About Private and Online Games

Carrel recounts additional allegations aired in social media videos. One concerns an online game in which participants allegedly believed they were playing against a particular recreational player, but a professional backed by Britney was playing instead. Carrel acknowledges that he has not fully confirmed the account.

He also relays a story attributed to Lulu about recruiting professionals for a game involving Peter. In an addition at the end of his video, Carrel describes an interview conducted by Wesley in which another person alleges that losses were overstated during a private game in China years earlier.

Those accounts broaden the controversy. They also involve multiple layers of sourcing: people telling their stories, Carrel interpreting and presenting them, and this article summarizing his video. They should not be mistaken for findings from a casino investigation or court proceeding.

Where the C Ye Dispute Stands

Carrel remains firmly on C Ye’s side. He says he considers her cleared of the chip-theft accusation and maintains that Britney owes her $18,000. Those are Carrel’s conclusions, not an official ruling resolving the dispute.

As covered in Part 2, Britney has publicly denied having outstanding debts. That denial remains relevant, but it should not be read as a specific response to every additional allegation presented in this video.

HCL’s quoted statement says its review is ongoing. Until further evidence or an update is available, a break from the show, accusations of misconduct, and proven wrongdoing remain three different things.

Watch Charlie Carrel’s Full Video

The investigative work and conclusions discussed here are Carrel’s. Six Toed Pete is summarizing his coverage, not claiming to have independently interviewed the participants or verified the underlying records.

Follow Charlie Carrel on YouTube, C Ye on YouTube, and C Ye on X.